Dear Joris,

The 18th of September was a important date, even for me. I think the Indyref was the most important decisision the Scots had to made since 1707. I did try to read a lot of information about the referendum. The discussion about the pound, the oil- and gasfields, education, EU- and NATO-membership, etc.. was too difficult to form an opinion about. I was hoping that Yes would have won, but that’s more based on a feeling instead of ratio.

What should the Indyref had mean for Scottish football? In the world of football, Scotland already exists as a independent nation. But I think a Yes-vote would had been made a difference for Scottish football. Since the 19th century Scotland is suffering because of the English league. I always wondered if that should have been the case if Scotland and England would have been two independent nations. A indy Scotland wasn’t inmediately a EU-member. What would that had mean for transfer between both countries? The clubs in the Premier League could still have bought the best players, but clubs in League One? Maybe some players would have stayed in Scotland for a longer time instead of leaving to England.

I think the consequences now, with the No-vote will be even bigger. The FIFA would love it to create a UK football team. It would mean Europe has got three members less and there share would be smaller as at the moment. But the most important thing for the FIFA would bet hat they can take the power in the IFAB, the supervisory body that decides about the laws of the game. At the moment it has five members: FIFA, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. FIFA has four votes and the rest one, but every change has to be approved by six votes, so the FIFA can’t change this alone. They would love to take this No-vote to suggest a merger between the four home nations.

Let’s talk about Hibs as well. In contrast to you, I’d never thought Hibs would battle for the titel. There is something very wrong at the club. I think this is the worst era the club has been through. Last weekend, Hibs was virtually the bottom club when Cowdenbeath was 1-2 up at Easter Road. It’s unbelievable, because there were still 11.000 spectators (even if the price of the season tickets is on the same level as last year). 11.000 is the ten fold of, let’s say, Livingston. When you consider that, it’s a disgrace that we were virtually at the bottom of the Championship.

I don’t believe the Hibees hate Hearts more than the other way around. I think they both equally dislike eachother. The hate towards the Old Firm does not only exsist at Tynecastle, but in the whole of Scottish football. I don’t think there is a country in the world were the difference between two clubs and the rest is as big as in Scotland. I can’t explain it, but I’ll guess it has something to do with sectarianism. In most countries people attach themself to a club because of the city of region where they are from. But in Scotland I always get a feeling people are attached to Celtic or Rangers because of the sectarianism. That’s why they are so big in every big city or small village in Scotland.

Talking about Rangers. It’s a disgrace that they are still spending so much money, even when they played in the third and the fourth tier. And they still acting like a victim. Saying they are thrown out of the SPL. The truth is the went bust. The old Rangers is gone, but they thought the other clubs would let the new club, free of debts, into the SPL. When that didn’t happened, they start acting like a victim. I think the Victimhood is a big part of the identity of both Old Firm clubs.

The Edinburgh derby isn’t a small Old Firm in the slighest. That’s a myth. I know at Hibs they hate it to be called the “Wee Celtic” and I guess at Hearts they will hate it to be called “Diet Huns”. I think that, underneath the big rivalry between both Edinburgh clubs, there is a little bit of sympathy for eachtother, because both clubs have the same problems with both Glaswegian clubs.

Regards,

Sebas